Community Redevelopment Law of 2019.
If approved, AB 11 would have significant implications for state laws regarding community development. It reinstates and enhances the powers of local agencies to issue bonds and utilize tax increment financing, which had been curtailed after the dissolution of redevelopment agencies in 2012. The bill stipulates that a minimum of 30% of tax revenues generated should be directed towards the creation and maintenance of affordable housing, ensuring that new developments prioritize low- and moderate-income residents. Additionally, it aligns local redevelopment efforts with state environmental goals, particularly those related to greenhouse gas reduction.
Assembly Bill No. 11, also known as the Community Redevelopment Law of 2019, is a legislative proposal aimed at reviving and modernizing community redevelopment efforts in California. This bill allows cities and counties to form affordable housing and infrastructure agencies through a structured process that requires public engagement and fiscal oversight. In essence, it provides a legal framework for these entities to manage tax increment financing in a manner that supports local community development projects, particularly those that focus on affordable housing and environmental improvements.
The sentiment surrounding AB 11 appears to be generally supportive among advocates for affordable housing and local government entities. Proponents believe that the bill addresses pressing issues of housing shortages and infrastructure decay by re-establishing financial mechanisms previously available to local communities. However, there are concerns from some stakeholders about potential fiscal risks and the adequacy of oversight that could arise from the implementation of tax increment financing in a new context. This tension highlights a broader debate about local versus state control over redevelopment efforts.
One notable point of contention relates to the mechanisms by which local agencies can allocate tax increments and the associated state fiscal impacts. Critics argue that the reintroduction of tax increment financing could create disparities in funding allocation and may undermine existing funding for public schools and other essential services. Supporters counter that the bill includes provisions to address these concerns, requiring adjustments to maintain overall fiscal neutrality for affected entities, thus ensuring that local projects do not adversely affect broader public funding.